138th Year... and still on the job!	Sunday November 5, 2006

Weapons disposal process

1. Weapons are moved from the G-Block igloos directly
west of the demilitarization facility and stored in three
reinforced Munitions Storage Magazines.
2. They are then taken to the Enhanced Recovery Bldg,
where fuses and bursters are removed. Those items then
are taken to the Energetics Storage Magazine to await
shipment off-site for disposal or recycling.
3. The next step for the weapons is the Agent Processing
Bldg, where the mustard agent is washed out with high-
pressure water. The mixture is heated to 194 degrees
Fahrenheit, breaking down the mustard agent into
thiodiglycol, a commonly used solvent, hydrochloric
acid and some other small amounts of organic
compounds. Sodium hydroxide, similar to the active
ingredient in drain cleaners, is added to the mix to
neutralize the acid.
4. The mixture, still about 90 percent water is called
hydrolysate. It will either be pumped over to a
biotreatment plant or put on tanker trucks or rail cars
and shipped off-site for treatment. The metal shells are
heated to complete the decontamination and then
shipped off-site for disposal.

Chemical arms removal remains tough subject

By JOHN NORTON
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

When local officials monitoring the destruction of chemical weapons worry about the way the Defense Department wants to handle the residue, it's not so much because of any law of science as much as the better known law attributed to Murphy.

There are just too many things that can go wrong, raising costs and causing delays in the already delayed program.

They just don't believe that it's going to be as easy as some think to ship 8.4 million gallons of hazardous waste across the country, instead of just treating it here and recycling the water.

Officials of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program, overseeing weapons destruction here and at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky, say that off-site treatment will save $150 million for the Pueblo project alone, equal to a year's budget for the local project.

Critics, however, call that a false economy, fearing that the agency eventually will be forced to treat the hydrolysate on-site anyway and wind up spending more money because they didn't plan for it. Or worse, they fear that if the hydrolysate can't be shipped because of political opposition elsewhere, it will give the Pentagon an excuse to delay the Pueblo project again.

Hydrolysate is the generic term for the liquid left over from any hydrolysis process. The demilitarization program here will break down 2,611 tons of mustard agent into two hazardous chemicals, thiodiglycol and sodium hydroxide, along with a few smaller traces of organic compounds suspended in millions of gallons of water.

Here's how the process will work:

Weapons will be removed from the igloos in the depot's highly guarded G-Block, located just west of the demilitarization plant site at the north end of the Army base. The stockpile contains approximately 383,418 105-mm projectiles, 299,554 155-mm projectiles and 97,106 4.2-inch mortar rounds. There also are propellants used to fire the weapons and explosives inside the shells that have to be removed. That will be the first step, taking place in what designers call the Enhanced Reconfiguration Building. There, the fuses and bursters will be removed and along with propellants will be shipped off to a disposal site. Wooden crates used to store the weapons also will be taken to a dump used for hazardous wastes.

The next stop for the weapons will be the Agent Processing Building where robotic equipment will use hydraulic rams to crush the burster wells, breaking the top of the munition open and draining out the liquid mustard agent into reactors for hydrolysis.

Mustard agent freezes at 57 degrees Fahrenheit but, in its liquid form, it has the consistency of molasses. Craig Mylar, chief scientist for the Pueblo program, said that because of the age of the weapons, it's expected that many will have developed "heels" where solids have accumulated and will have to be forced out of the shells. To make sure the shells are completely cleaned, they'll be hit with high-pressure water at 10,000 pounds per square inch.

The mortar rounds will have their bottoms cut off and then opened completely for draining.

The metal parts of all the shells will be superheated and then shipped off for disposal and, if not contaminated by mustard agent, possible recycling.

The hot water in the reactor breaks down the mustard agent into thiodiglycol and hydrochloric acid along with some smaller amounts of trace organic chemicals.

Thiodiglycol is a common solvent for paint and ink. Mylar explained, "If you smell the ink in your pen what you smell is really the thiodiglycol smell."

Both of the chemicals that make up most of the non-water portion hydrolysate, are regularly shipped across the United States for commercial use. In fact, about 400 truckloads of sodium hydroxide will be delivered to the chemical depot over the course of the demilitarization process. A chemical similar to what's used in Drano, it will be added to the mixture of water and mustard agent to neutralize hydrochloric acid. That will give the hydrolysate a high enough pH level, similar to that of drain cleaner of bleach, to require special treatment in shipping.

Officials of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative program have offered assurances that the hydrolysate is safe to ship and while that could be true, local critics of the plan are more worried about the reaction from other communities through which the hydrolysate will travel and eventually be treated.

The components of hydrolysate are commonly-used substances but the fact that they come from chemical weapons adds a stigma in the minds of many people. And it's not just in people's minds - Colorado environmental law considers the source of chemicals, too, and treats hazardous materials differently, depending on their origin.

Reinforcing the worries of local officials is a problem facing the Newport, Ind., Chemical Agent Disposal Facility: Nerve agent hydrolysate has been piling up because of opposition by environmental groups and others in New Jersey. That’Äôs where DuPont's Chambers Works plant was supposed to treat the liquid.

There is growing opposition in New Jersey to having hydrolysate shipped there. Permits still need from the state are being fought by environmental groups and members of New Jersey's Congressional delegation added language to a recent defense authorization bill requiring a General Accounting Office investigation of the plan, something that could further set back shipments.

In the meantime, millions of gallons are expected to be stored in tanks at the Indiana base as the treatment program continues.

And it appears that New Jersey residents won't want Pueblo's hydrolysate, either, even though it's from mustard agent and not the deadlier nerve agent. Tracy Carluccio, of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said members of her group are still upset over the 6.7 million gallons of mustard agent hydrolysate shipped to the DuPont plant from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. Last year, the Chemical Materials Agency finished neutralizing 1,623 tons of mustard agent that had been stored in ton containers.

At a roundtable in Pueblo last month, Mike Parker, who heads both ACWA and the Army's Chemical Materials Agency took offense when Ross Vincent, of the local Sierra Club group, said Parker's agency "got away" with the Aberdeen shipment. Parker said that the local community was made aware of the shipments.

Carluccio, however, said, that residents received the "absolute minimum in terms of public notice."

"We would have challenged it legally in court but by the time we found out about it the job was done. They moved it in railcars and no one knew anything about the (hydrolysate) coming there. They didn't go through the normal process. They didn't get a modification of the permit for DuPont."

Irene Kornelly, a member of the Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens's Advisory Commission is one of the skeptics of off-site shipment. The CAC has already gone on record opposing off-site treatment and Park has asked the group to reconsider its stand before next summer when a final decision will be made by the Pentagon.

	The Pueblo Chemical Depot stockpile contains three types of weapons: 383,418 105-mm projectiles, 299,554 155-mm projectiles and 97,106 4.2-inch mortar rounds. 105-mm projectile
	Fuse Each weapon contains a fuse on its tip, which ignites a burster that runs down the center of the weapons.
	Burster When the burster explodes, the weapons sends out shrapnel and mustard agent.
	Mustard agent The first step in destruction of the weapons will be the removal of the fuses and bursters.

Parker's agency has supplied the CAC with the numbers he says make off-site treatment more economical and Kornelly and CAC Chairman John Klomp are going over those now. Those two commission members have been given clearance to view proprietary information supplied by contractors.

Kornelly said her biggest worry is not the danger of hydrolysate on the road but delays caused by opposition elsewhere. "I don't think I have a real concern that the hydrolysate is anything more than what the Army says it is," she said. "I'm not concerned that there is a technical problem. I'm concerned that there is a time problem. We could get to the point where we've eaten up whatever savings we'd made."

Kornelly also worries that some people in the Pentagon are more worried about short-term costs. The life-cycle cost of the Pueblo project has doubled since it was approved to $3 billion, which the Pentagon is willing to spend in annual $150 million increments. But ironically, two years ago, the Defense Department balked when the life-cycle cost for an accelerated program, which would have been under way by now, had grown to $2.7 billion. The acceleration had been ordered by a since-departed undersecretary of defense in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Parker has said that the problem with the accelerated plan was the higher annual cost, which the Pentagon couldn't afford with its tight budget.

Kornelly admitted some concern that the government is more interested in saving money in the early stages and that she has been told by some Pentagon officials, "it doesn't make any difference anyway because we won't be here later."

"I think that's really irresponsible."

Kornelly said that she also has problems with the figures she's seen comparing on-site and off-site hydrolysate treatment. "They've addressed some risks but certainly not the risks that would come from concerns over the movement of the hydrolysate."

Kornelly said she wants more information and expects to see that in a report from Mitretek Systems, a consultant hired to study the project. That's due in December or January. She said that the commission won't have a recommendation on hydrolysate treatment until then.

"When we talked to the folks from Mitretek, (hydrolysate) was one of the issues they were addressing."

John Klomp, chairman of the CAC, hasn't seen any surprises in the information he's seen so far. "They were all pretty well in line with the figures," he said, "and it would save about $150 million to do off-site treatment. Basically, the greatest savings comes from the equipment they would have to buy."

However, like Kornelly, Klomp said he doesn't believe that the agency has adequately considered other risks. "Arguably, it may be safe to ship this," he said. "But I still think they're going to run into some issues about crossing political boundaries. People are going to fight this, groups could file injunctions."

Another consideration not addressed in the cost figures is the possibility of using biotreatment tanks purchased for the Aberdeen project and never used that could be shipped to Pueblo. He said that the report also sees the biotreatment option as a sunk cost and doesn't address the value of the equipment when the project ends, something that ACWA officials had touted several years ago. The entire apparatus could be dismantled and used at another location or even provided to a small city or district to serve as a sewer plant.

One of the biggest impacts of the program locally will be jobs but that has not been a major concern in the hydrolysate debate.

ACWA Deputy Program Manager Bill Pehlivanian told the CAC at a recent meeting that off-site treatment would mean a net loss of 27 jobs out of a total work force of about 1,000 people at its peak. The biotreatment plant would have meant 35 jobs in the laboratory, maintenance and support positions. Off-site treatment would mean eight more jobs in the loading station.

Those figures don't take into account construction jobs, however, if the biotreatment plant were built here.

Klomp said that ACWA officials have held out the promise of getting an earlier start on construction if the $150 million savings could be applied to the project now but on the other hand, biotreatment could mean a longer life for the entire project, keeping people working.